“For to us a child is born,to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders.And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.”

This is considered to be a prophecy about Jesus Christ. However, nowhere during Jesus’ lifetime was he called Prince of peace, he never even called himself so.

A prince of peace should be a pacifist and truly, Jesus taught pacifism in several verses of the Bible. In Matthew 5:38-44,Jesus said;

38 “You have heard that it was said,’Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’

39 But I say tell you,do not resist an evil person.If anyone slaps you on the right cheek,turn to them the other cheek also.

40 If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt,hand over your coat as well.

41 If anyone forces you to go one mile,go with them two miles.

42 Give to those who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you

43 “You have heard that it was said,’love your neighbor and hate your enemy.”

44 But I tell you,love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.

These verses really define Jesus of the Bible to be a man of peace agreeing with the title,”Prince of peace”. In contrast to these verses, we find out that Jesus of the Bible never really meant peace nor came for peace in other verses of the Bible. We read clearly what Jesus said,

“Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came NOT TO SEND PEACE,BUT SWORD”(Matthew10:34).

Jesus explains further,
“For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law”

These statements attributed to Jesus do not only riot the pacifist Christians paint Jesus to be,they could also make us conclude that Jesus is the cause of all the unrest in the world today(if those statements were true).

We have the prince of peace saying,

“Do you think I come to bring peace on earth? No,I tell you, but division”(Luke 12:51)
He further explains how the division is going to be;
“From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other,three against two and two against three.
“They will be divided,father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law”(Luke12:52-53).

How can a supposed prince of peace utter these statements?.He said again,

“I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled”(Luke12:49)
Jesus here claimed to have brought fire on earth and wished the fire had started burning,He however tells us what was stopping the fire from burning in the next verse,
“But I have a baptism to undergo,and what constraint I am under until it is completed”(Luke12:50)

One may say satirically,”perhaps Jesus underwent the baptism and after them we see the fire burning in form of bomb blasts in different countries today”.It is clear from all indications that Jesus of the bible is more pugnacious than the pacifist the Christians call him.

In Mark11:12-25,Jesus was recorded to have dealt unjustly with the fig tree by placing a curse on it which led to it’s withering though Jesus was at fault because it was not the season of the tree to produce fruit.

I thank my opponent for presenting their first argument. I will now present my side of the case, as an explanation from the Christian standpoint.

Psalm 29:11 says that “The LORD gives strength to his people; The LORD blesses His people with peace.” Good so far. However, there are many bible verses that supposedly claim that Jesus Christ was not a “Prince of Peace”. However, one question arises before Jesus’ trial. What is peace?

Merriam Webster gives us this definition:

Full Definition of peace

1: a state of tranquillity or quiet: a

a: freedom from civil disturbance

b: a state of security or order within a community provided for by law or custom <a breach of thepeace>

Notice what all these definitions have in common. All three of them are comparing, “A state of tranquility, a freedom from, a state of security”. What does this tell us? Maybe people believe to see peace as a bird in a tree, singing its tiny heart out in the beauty of nature on a sunny and clear-skies day. This image isn’t even remotely close to peace. Why? Peace obviously has a factor of comparison, and if everything is happy and delightful, we have nothing chaotic to compare it to. A better representation of peace would be a hurricane tearing apart a forest, a flood rages below, and that same bird is still singing its heart out.

As the unshaken bird is to peace, this bird also represents Jesus. He came to this earth in human flesh, and lived a perfect life for the glory of The LORD. Jesus came in a time that was not peaceful whatsoever, when the greatest world power ever to exist, the Roman Empire, was in control. Jesus went against the norm, and pursued being a servant, a messenger, and a messiah.

A common misconception with Jesus’ teachings and words was one that seems to completely go against the idea of Jesus being a “Prince of Peace”. Matthew 10:34 says this: “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.” This verse seems to be contradictory to the popular Christian idea that Jesus is THE “Prince of Peace”. However, this verse is made apparent to not claim that Jesus wasn’t peaceful after further examination. When Jesus says “I come to bring a sword” doesn’t mean an ACTUAL sword. No, Jesus came to bring division. Jesus speaks of the division that will come between families due to belief in God and lack of belief in God. Jesus hasn’t come to lolly-gag and play around. Jesus came to completely change lives and minds, and to bring change. This also explains Luke 12:51. More evidence that Jesus did not come to slay everyone with his awesome flaming sword of holy and infinite power, is in Matthew 26:51: “With that, one of Jesus’ companions reached for his sword, drew it out and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear.” Jesus then performs yet another miracle, and places the ear right back on the soilder’s head. (Matthew 26:52) “Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.” That last statement by Jesus can be confusing. If you draw your sword, you will die by it? Here, Jesus is just restating the Golden Rule in a different way. Treat others as you would have them treat you.

Rebuttals to Con’s arguments will be made in round three, as stated in the specifications for the debate.

I will now move on to present my third round of argument which is going to be about making rebuttals to the Pros points.

The Pro wrote;

“Merriam Webster gives us this definition:

Full Definition of peace

1: a state of tranquillity or quiet: a

a: freedom from civil disturbance

b: a state of security or order within a community provided for by law or custom ”

I think the pro exempted other definition of peace listed under full definition of peace by the Merriam Webster’s dictionary just because he wants to cherry-pick the definitions that suit his arguments. This is what is written in Merriam Webster;

Full Definition of peace
1
: a state of tranquillity or quiet: as
a : freedom from civil disturbance
b : a state of security or order within a community provided for by law or custom
2
: freedom from disquieting or oppressive thoughts or emotions
3
: harmony in personal relations
4
a : a state or period of mutual concord between governments
b : a pact or agreement to end hostilities between those who have been at war or in a state of enmity
5
“used interjectionally to ask for silence or calm or as a greeting or farewell
at peace
: in a state of concord or tranquillity

In the second chapter of the gospel of John, verse 15 says;
“Jesus made a whip from some ropes and chased them all out of the Temple. He drove out the sheep and cattle, scattered the money changers’ coins over the floor, and turned over their tables(NLT).

This action alone contradicts all definitions of peace given by the pro. The pro also wrote;

“More evidence that Jesus did not come to slay everyone with his awesome flaming sword of holy and infinite power, is in Matthew 26:51: “With that, one of Jesus’ companions reached for his sword, drew it out and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear.” Jesus then performs yet another miracle, and places the ear right back on the soilder’s head. (Matthew 26:52) “Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.” That last statement by Jesus can be confusing. If you draw your sword, you will die by it? Here, Jesus is just restating the Golden Rule in a different way. Treat others as you would have them treat you.”

The pro seems to be concealing so many things, picking up verses that suit him. That Jesus said anyone who draws the sword will die by the sword is understandable. The Roman soldiers were powerful and vicious. Not only did the disciples of Jesus are short of sword compared to the Roman soldiers, they also lack in Might. Jesus couldn’t have ordered the disciples to start fighting the terrific Roman soldiers hence he made that statement to save his disciples (if that actually happened).

One may ask, What was the disciple doing with a sword? Was Jesus not aware of the disciple’s possession of sword? We need not to go far looking for answers. The disciple was in possession of a sword due to the command of Jesus. Jesus said to his disciples in Luke 22:36;
“Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.”http://biblehub.com…

We may ask, “sword for what?”.

The pro wrote again,

“As the unshaken bird is to peace, this bird also represents Jesus. He came to this earth in human flesh, and lived a perfect life for the glory of The LORD. Jesus came in a time that was not peaceful whatsoever, when the greatest world power ever to exist, the Roman Empire, was in control. Jesus went against the norm, and pursued being a servant, a messenger, and a messiah.”

If this were to be the case, then we could refer to Elijah as being the Prince of peace too as he went against the king, Ahab and played role of God’s servant, messenger. In fact, we would say any rebel or activist standing against a tyrannical government is a prince of peace. However, Jesus seems not to be against the Roman rule as the pro claimed rather he was more concerned with the Scribes, Pharisees and the Saducces.

Contrary to the pro’s argument, we read in Mark 12:17,

“Then Jesus said to them, “Give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.” And they were amazed at him.”

I don’t know under what holy spirit is the pro giving being against a certain norm as peace.